Trial reportBMJ open2014
Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Introducing Preference Epidemiology: Improving Patient-Centered Approaches in Health Decision-Making.International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Perspectives and Misconceptions of an Online Adult Male Cohort Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Addressing opioid misuse through community-engaged strategy development: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Review
- IMPAACT: IMproving the PArticipAtion of older people in policy decision-making on common health CondiTions - a study protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Attitudes Toward and Use of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Urologists and General Practitioners in Germany: A Survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Active Vaccine Safety Surveillance: Global Trends and Challenges in China.Health data science · 2021Review
- Review
- Exploring women's priorities for the potential consequences of a gestational diabetes diagnosis: A pilot community jury.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- An Australian community jury to consider case-finding for dementia: Differences between informed community preferences and general practice guidelines.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Developing and applying a deductive coding framework to assess the goals of Citizen/Community Jury deliberations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Early detection of prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing: an empirical evaluation among general practitioners and urologists.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Article
- Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Thinking Style as a Predictor of Men's Participation in Cancer Screening.American journal of men's health · 2017Article
- Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls.Seminars in perinatology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProstate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening.
designRandom allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment.
settingParticipants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings.
participantsTwenty-six men aged 50-70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer.
interventionThe control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer.
resultsAnalyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=-0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001).
conclusionsEvidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.